Appeal No. 96-3944
Application 08/041,543
voltage regulator 1 (appellant identifies his voltage regulator
in Figure 10B as zener diode D2), which is a zener diode, and a
detector device, heating element 2. As heating element 2 heats
up, there would appear to be a greater amount of "residual
electricity." Thus, the temperature of heating element 2 in
Meinhold would certainly appear to be a good indicator of
"residual electricity," as claimed.
We do note, for the record, that the examiner never
addressed the limitations of claim 9 concerning the residual
electricity-detector circuit so we are at a loss as to the
examiner's exact position thereon.
With regard to claims 12 and 19, appellant argues that
these claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Since we treated claim 1, supra, claims 12 and 19 will fall
therewith. Appellant does mention, at page 11 of the principal
brief, that claim 12 also adds the limitation of a plurality of
"double layer capacitors" and that while Rose does describe such
capacitors, there is no suggestion therein of the need for the
special charging circuits. However, the teaching of the charging
circuit is the purpose of the primary reference to Meinhold. We
have already found that it would have been obvious to employ
capacitors in place of the battery cells taught by Meinhold.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007